End of "Dover Trap" in sight: HR 2679 passes House
Stop the ACLU reports that HR 2679, the Public Expression of Religion Act, passed the House today by the fairly large margin of 244 to 173. This bill would bar attorney fee awards to prevailing plaintiffs in establishment clause lawsuits. If the bill passes the Senate and is signed into law by Bush, the "Dover Trap" will be history. Hopefully that would put some starch into the spines of politicians and public-school officials who are now too easily intimidated by the Darwinists. As I said, I would prefer a fee cap on both establishment clause cases and free-exercise clause cases, but I consider HR 2679 to be much better than nothing.
Action is still pending on S 3696, the companion Senate bill. Your Senator may be contacted here.
My previous comments about HR 2679 are in the following articles:
Answer to ACLU letter opposing S 3696 (HR 2679)
HR 2679 now has Senate companion bill, S 3696
More Ed Brayton lies about HR 2679
Challenge to Ed Brayton and his pals
Hypocritical Ed Brayton still doesn't get it on HR 2679
HR 2679, the bill barring attorney fee awards in establishment clause lawsuits
Is the party almost over for ACLU and AUSCS?
Action is still pending on S 3696, the companion Senate bill. Your Senator may be contacted here.
My previous comments about HR 2679 are in the following articles:
Answer to ACLU letter opposing S 3696 (HR 2679)
HR 2679 now has Senate companion bill, S 3696
More Ed Brayton lies about HR 2679
Challenge to Ed Brayton and his pals
Hypocritical Ed Brayton still doesn't get it on HR 2679
HR 2679, the bill barring attorney fee awards in establishment clause lawsuits
Is the party almost over for ACLU and AUSCS?
Labels: Attorney fee awards
posted by Larry Fafarman | 9/26/2006 08:38:00 PM
11 Comments:
> Hopefully that would put some starch into the spines of politicians and public-school officials who are now too easily intimidated by the Darwinists. <
We will see if the politicians are too easily intimidated by the religious fanatics. If they are, the clear way around this is abuse of process suits against the public school officials who are wasting the taxpayers' money in an attempt to circumvent the law.
Voice In The Wilderness said...
>>>>>> Hopefully that would put some starch into the spines of politicians and public-school officials who are now too easily intimidated by the Darwinists.
We will see if the politicians are too easily intimidated by the religious fanatics. <<<<<<
Yes, VIW, that is one of the reasons why I prefer a cap on fee awards in both establishment clause and free-exercise cases instead of just a ban on fee awards in establishment clause cases. I am glad that you are at last beginning to see the wisdom of my ideas.
I am somewhat worried now about the companion bill in the Senate, S 3696. The vote in the House was largely along partisan lines -- only 6 Republicans voted against HR 2679 and only 26 Democrats voted in favor -- and the Republicans have a relatively small majority in the Senate, 55-45.
>>>>>> If they are, the clear way around this is abuse of process suits against the public school officials who are wasting the taxpayers' money in an attempt to circumvent the law. <<<<<
I have seen different legal definitions of "abuse of process," but none of them have anything to do with wasting taxpayers' money. For example, here is a definition from Findlaw:
the tort of bringing and following through with a civil or criminal action for a purpose known to be different from the purpose for which the action was designed
Another definition concerns the abuse of process service.
> I am glad that you are at last beginning to see the wisdom of my ideas. <
No. You are not yet beginning to see the idiocy of your ideas.
> I have seen different legal definitions of "abuse of process," but none of them have anything to do with wasting taxpayers' money. <
I think that the entire concept is over your head. If you can't understand the basics of law, how could you be expected to understand abuse of process?
Wasting the taxpayers' money is not the issue. Filing a suit that you know you can't win purely for the purpose of harassment is a good abuse of process case.
Your definition from Findlaw describes this exactly.
You seem to have a great interest in law. It is a shame that you are totally devoid of the ability to understand it.
> Another definition concerns the abuse of process service. <
Quite irrelevant. You have to give up your word search method of research. I can lead you down too many blind alleys.
>>>>> Wasting the taxpayers' money is not the issue. Filing a suit that you know you can't win purely for the purpose of harassment is a good abuse of process case. <<<<<
You stupid dummox -- why would public school officials file an establishment clause lawsuit against private citizens?
I guess that really would be an "abuse of process," wouldn't it?
> why would public school officials file an establishment clause lawsuit against private citizens? <
You hopeless halfwit. Who said anything about a lawsuit against private citizens? I suppose you think that it was "implied" based on your wild misinterpretations.
You might as well throw in the towel on this one early. Every post you make only demonstrates that you are clueless about this subject.
I would suggest you ask anyone you can find who can read to just read this thread and explain it to you. So far it could have been written in Chinese and you wouldn't have done much worse.
Voice is right on this Larry. You don't seem to read posts before flying off in random directions to prove that you don't understand them. I would also agree that you seem to be doing your research by using a word search engine and then not really understanding what you find.
You might consider reading everything carefully before attempting to answer posts or use material as a reference. If you are trying to formulate your answer or new post at the same time as you are reading, you will begin to see things in the item being read that is not actually there.
Sherry D is right. Some people can chew gum and walk at the same time. You evidentally cannot.
Don't insult my brother like that. He can chew gum and walk. Of course he sometimes walks into trees while doing it.
Take it easy on him, guys. If you drive him into his hole it will ruin our fun.
Congress has adjourned until the week of November 13th, after which they will have 4 or 5 weeks before they permanently adjourn and any pending bills get discarded. They still have 10 major appropriation bills and several national security bills to deal with in that short time. The Judiciary Committee has about 25 bills scheduled for floor debate, and none of those are S 3696. It looks like this bill will die its usual ignominous death in committee.
W. Kevin Vicklund said...
>>>>>The Judiciary Committee has about 25 bills scheduled for floor debate, and none of those are S 3696. It looks like this bill will die its usual ignominous death in committee. <<<<<<
Well, a lot of people predicted that the bills would never get this far. I myself greatly prefer the idea of a cap on fee awards in both establishment clause and free-exercise clause cases. I think that a fee cap would have a much better chance of passing the Senate. Fee caps are not new -- they have been used in the past.
Post a Comment
<< Home